Yikes! The Uterus Police!

reply to post by Vicky32


No, I refuse to change my spelling. :-p

You can use the word 'baby' for a geraft or a plane if you want. Usually in these types of debates though, I am suspicious! it is used as an emotional goodie elsewise I see no point in using the word 'baby'.

It's true, I didn't supply a boring long list of my 'proofs' that i'm sure everyone on this thread has seen and can easily research on their own and consider...as there are 'proofs' for both sides of the debate. And i'm too tired at the end of the day to get hot and heavy into the typing, atleast for this particular subject. So a casual flapping of my lips from my direction.
If however, I do make a 'profound' statement (which is unlikely haha), I will supply proof for it.

If I were to consider the Anti-Choice point of view, I could see the reason why someone would want to put a cap on abortion to a reasonable degree such as preventive measures and laws on the issue of abortion as birth control, however, I find myself concerned when people want to take it to an extreamism and pass draconian laws which people seem to think is the answere to everything and it is not. Draconian type laws are knee-jerk re-actions...and do not truly deal with the issues at hand.

Actually Arles, I think you did say something profound.

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
If I were to consider the Anti-Choice point of view, I could see the reason why someone would want to put a cap on abortion to a reasonable degree such as preventive measures and laws on the issue of abortion as birth control, however, I find myself concerned when people want to take it to an extreamism and pass draconian laws which people seem to think is the answere to everything and it is not. Draconian type laws are knee-jerk re-actions...and do not truly deal with the issues at hand.

Abortions would continue even with overturning RvW, as abortions had been done before RvW. All RvW did was say a woman had the right to a safe abortion. No longer would women have to fear a self-induced abortion or a botched abortion not carried out in a medically safe environment. Nor would they have to fear being charged with a crime.

What I find repugnant is the reckless use of the term "baby". Miscarriages have always been traumatic enough for women, but to imply they are always miscarrying a "baby" is wrong. I have seen more and more females made even more depressed over a miscarriage at an earlier time in the pregnancy, over the belief that they were losing a "baby". Instead of being able to move forward with emotional well being, these females will always be encouraged to believe they "lost a baby".

Likewise, I have witnessed women have to make the horribly personal decision to carry an almost 8 month dead fetus to full term or undergo an abortion. Mr. Franklin would never have to do this.

Yet he proposes something so harsh, so lacking compassion, that I would dismiss it, if it weren't for the fact that he is in such a position of power to keep these draconian ideas alive, ready to be made into law if enough voters wish.

reply to post by desert


You're right, people seem to think that extreame measures will put an end to abortion but it will only drive women to darker places since they won't have a safe place to go. This will increase physical and emotional harm and fatalities as well as 'dumpster babies' ( I also find the use of 'baby' as erroneous and deliberately calculated to strum and misplace those emotional and sentimental strings which are so often abused by those up to no good). But apparently, that's 'Pro-Life'.

It might be controversial to say and make things even less clear cut but I think that there is such a clinging to 'life' that we ignore the place of 'death' in life and visa versa and so ignore the reality of this world. I particularily see this in the Right to Die debates. With that clinging, people can't see when to have and when to let go in accordence to the Way of things (the heart knows). There is a time and place for everything. Hence a little into my thinking as to why I don't think the Anti-Choice and Pro-Choice issue is as black and white as we would like it to be.

If things were in accord to what we would like them to be...abstinence would work, rape and incest would never be, unwanted pregnancies would never happen nor would abortions and miscarriages ever be known nor the infant die and children would outlive their parents.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Sadly, this is the dark side of Christianity that is often supressed or at least ignored. And while this is not a post attacking Christians for the sake of it, I would like to point out that I have seen this sort of bible beating misogynistic hogwash throughout my childhood here in Texas.

I'll bet this man is anti-muslim and supported sending troops to Afghanistan to "support women's rights".

He is a hypocrite. Unfortunately, the fact that he keeps getting elected means there are others in GA that agree with him.

I apologize on behalf of my gender.

This is not Christianity. He may call himself a Christian, but I seriously doubt he actually is one. At the very least, it is the twisted version. I'm a Christian, and am horrified by what he has said. No wonder Christianity gets a bad rep.

And...four years later, they're still at it.

Sigh...



Jiminy Cricket!